Whole picture

The numbers Paul Atchley (Journal-World, Oct 17) uses in his statements seem at first glance to prove his two conclusions stated in his last two sentences. But what Mr. Atchley fails to do (or was it on purpose) is to prove a cause-and-effect relationship of numbers to conclusions. Coincidence in time is not enough. There were thousands of other influences included in the same time spans referenced: wars, feasts, famines, epidemics, technologies, education declines or upswings, birth rate declines or increases, climate change, worldwide economics swings, worldwide political swings to name just a few. Any combination could easily have more to do with the outcomes referenced. Snapshot statements are not the whole picture.

Comments

I appreciate Mr. Blevins’ response to my letter. What he seems to have missed are two things. First, these are not “snapshots” in time, but 30-plus year windows. Both have the sorts of events he notes. Second, the events he notes don’t explain why 99% would see almost no growth in income relative to inflation while 1% would see growth of 261%. It is a product of what H.W. Bush called “voodoo economics”, the notion that if you give the rich more money and deregulate, the economy will grow. The fact is that the disparity between rich and poor in the U.S. is one of the highest in the first-world. This leads to fewer economic and educational opportunities, thus less invention and entrepreneurship and less economic growth. There will always be the rich, and that is good. It gives us something to strive to obtain. But we didn’t put a man on the moon by making it tough for people to afford a good education, cringing about improving our infrastructure, or rallying against all things “government” in favor of all things “corporate.”